|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVE: Intersection crashes resulted in over 5,000 fatalities in the United States in 2014. Intersection Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (I-ADAS) are active safety systems that seek to help drivers safely traverse intersections. I-ADAS uses onboard sensors to detect oncoming vehicles and, in the event of an imminent crash, can either alert the driver or take autonomous evasive action. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a predictive model for detecting whether a stop sign violation was imminent.
METHODS: Passenger vehicle intersection approaches were extracted from a data set of typical driver behavior (100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study) and violations (event data recorders downloaded from real-world crashes) and were assigned weighting factors based on real-world frequency. A k-fold cross-validation procedure was then used to develop and evaluate 3 hypothetical stop sign warning algorithms (i.e., early, intermediate, and delayed) for detecting an impending violation during the intersection approach. Violation detection models were developed using logistic regression models that evaluate likelihood of a violation at various locations along the intersection approach. Two potential indicators of driver intent to stop-that is, required deceleration parameter (RDP) and brake application-were used to develop the predictive models. The earliest violation detection opportunity was then evaluated for each detection algorithm in order to (1) evaluate the violation detection accuracy and (2) compare braking demand versus maximum braking capabilities.
RESULTS: A total of 38 violating and 658 nonviolating approaches were used in the analysis. All 3 algorithms were able to detect a violation at some point during the intersection approach. The early detection algorithm, as designed, was able to detect violations earlier than all other algorithms during the intersection approach but gave false alarms for 22.3% of approaches. In contrast, the delayed detection algorithm sacrificed some time for detecting violations but was able to substantially reduce false alarms to only 3.3% of all nonviolating approaches. Given good surface conditions (maximum braking capabilities = 0.8 g) and maximum effort, most drivers (55.3-71.1%) would be able to stop the vehicle regardless of the detection algorithm. However, given poor surface conditions (maximum braking capabilities = 0.4 g), few drivers (10.5-26.3%) would be able to stop the vehicle. Automatic emergency braking (AEB) would allow for early braking prior to driver reaction. If equipped with an AEB system, the results suggest that, even for the poor surface conditions scenario, over one half (55.3-65.8%) of the vehicles could have been stopped.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential of I-ADAS to incorporate a stop sign violation detection algorithm. Repeating the analysis on a larger, more extensive data set will allow for the development of a more comprehensive algorithm to further validate the findings.
Language: en |